[01:14] <micahg> jtaylor: I don't mind rebuilding imagemagick, what's being dropped?
[01:15] <micahg> jtaylor: nevermind, I can use tools to figure it out
[01:18] <micahg> jtaylor: only edubuntu and ubuntustudio seems to be affected (well, mythbuntu also, but they're not releasing ISOs)
[07:49] <dholbach> good morning
[08:13] <dholbach> debfx, directhex, DktrKranz: could one of you imagine teaming up with bdrung for the Developers Roundtable at UDW (Thu 31st Jan, 19:00 UTC), which will mostly be a Q&A session where everybody can ask their questions about Ubuntu Development in general?
[08:37] <iulian> Morning dholbach.
[08:37] <dholbach> hey iulian
[08:37] <dholbach> iulian, ^ maybe you could be interested in joining bdrung? :)
[08:38] <iulian> Nop, can't do that unfortunately. :(
[08:39] <dholbach> no worries, I hope we find somebody else
[08:39] <iulian> I'm sure there's someone out there with more free time than me. ;)
[08:40] <dholbach> there's 18:30 UTC (30m session) on that day we still have to find a speaker for too - we were thinking of either a demo of fixing a small bug or a walk through a few places to check for stuff to work on
[09:54] <Rhonda> *sigh*
[09:54] <Rhonda> People mail me that the packages.ubuntu.com site uses the old favicon - but noone tells me where to get the new one.
[09:54] <Rhonda> And strangely, chrome doesn't display it to me on the www.ubuntu.com neither.
[09:55] <tumbleweed> I see it in FF
[09:55] <Rhonda> Or on www.debian.org  *puzzled*
[09:55] <tumbleweed> www.ubuntu.com/sites/all/themes/ubuntu10/favicon.ico according to the source
[09:55] <Rhonda> Yep, found it in the source.
[09:56] <Rhonda> But it's still a bit … well.  *sigh* :)
[10:35] <MCR1> notgary: Hi :) If you are still searching for bitesize Compiz bugs for papercutters, here is quite a bunch of those: https://bugs.launchpad.net/compiz/+bugs?field.tag=coverity
[10:36] <MCR1> notgary: They seem to be ideal for newbies, because the whole sourcecode is Coverity commented and pretty self-explainatory, but ofc there might be false positives among those as well...
[10:39] <MCR1> notgary: This was just FYI, if you want to concentrate on other projects first, then no problem either - but feel free to use those, if you are on papercutters-bug-shortage ;)
[10:47] <MCR1> dholbach: Hi :) How many contributions to Ubuntu does one have to make until a packaging wish gets fulfilled for free ;) ?
[10:49] <MCR1> dholbach: I am missing https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/emerald/+bug/968112 :)
[11:47] <xnox> MCR1: made a comment on the bug. Please provide requested information (it's mostly treasure-hunt / google-foo) =)
[12:55] <MCR1> xnox: This was not the solution I expected. Please read https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/emerald/+bug/968112/comments/7
[12:56] <MCR1> xnox: I am running Emerald on Raring with latest Compiz/Unity and did so on Precise and Quantal as well
[12:59] <ogra_> MCR1, the point is that there will be nobody fixing bugs, the code was put to death by its developers
[13:00] <ogra_> so even if it builds and runs on all supported arches (which i highly doubt for arm or powerpc), it would just rot in the archive
[13:01] <MCR1> ogra_: Has every program for Ubuntu now to run on the Ubuntu phone ?
[13:01] <ogra_> ??
[13:01] <MCR1> ogra_: Then you would have to remove a lot more packages from the repos...
[13:01] <ogra_> no, the phoine wont run most apps, it doesnt run an X server afaik
[13:02] <ogra_> what has the phone to do with it ?
[13:04] <MCR1> ogra_: The point is: there is currently no replacement equal to or even better than Emerald and it still works, so why throw it out ?
[13:04] <ogra_> because its developers consider it dead
[13:04] <ogra_> and it diodnt build on all arches ... since there was no developer for fixing it, it had to be removed from the archive
[13:05] <MCR1> well, I would fix potential problems...
[13:06] <ogra_> so first make sure to have the FTBFS fixed then
[13:06] <MCR1> the build log from the bug is from a wrong version of Emerald btw - seems to be the non C++ branch
[13:07] <MCR1> well, as I told you: I can build it without problems
[13:07] <ogra_> create a PPA, ask the launchpad team for powerpc and armhf support for it, make sure it builds in all arches
[13:08] <ogra_> alternatively just convince debian to ship it and it will automatically be synced from there
[13:08] <ogra_> but its very unlikely debian will allow it in if it is an abandoned project upstream
[13:09] <tumbleweed> (and of course you'd get push-back in Ubuntu for that too)
[13:10]  * ogra_ wouldnt push back if someone can actually proof he can take over upstream fixing and packaging for all arches and bugs 
[13:10] <tumbleweed> in which case, it should totally be in Debian :)
[13:10] <ogra_> but thats indeed a quite advanced and likely also time consuming full time job :)
[13:11] <MCR1> okay, guess I'll try to chat with some of the Debian packagers then - thanks
[13:11] <tumbleweed> if there were historically problems buildign it on other archs
[13:11] <ogra_> i bet they will tell you the same, but good luck
[13:11] <tumbleweed> I'd start by seeinf if those are still issues
[13:11] <tumbleweed> it's easy enough to build for ARM with qemu
[13:11] <ogra_> right, thats why i suggested a PPA
[13:12] <MCR1> tumbleweed: The initial problem was just a linker error
[13:12] <ogra_> now that you can have armhf ...
[13:12] <MCR1> then it got removed
[13:13] <ogra_> it didnt build and nobody wanted to fix it
[13:13] <MCR1> it was working and available until 11.10 and first noone knew how to fix it
[13:13] <ogra_> (note that between opening of the bug and removing the package there were 6 weeks)
[13:14] <ogra_> nobody bothered to fix it and there was no upstream anymore ... we dont allow packages in the archive that dont build
[13:14] <tumbleweed> we have hundreds of packages that fail to build, each release. The few people that care don't have time to fix them all
[13:14] <ogra_> right
[13:14] <MCR1> then someone found out how to fix it and I added this information, but later nothing happened
[13:15] <ogra_> and what cant be fixed and has no chance to be fixed through upstreams will be removed
[13:15] <tumbleweed> because if we bring it back - there's still no upstream, so it's just a matter of time before it breaks again, and we have to deal with it
[13:15] <ogra_> MCR1, ?? i dont see any other comment in the bug
[13:15] <MCR1> all I am asking you is helping me get this package back in as I am no packager and have no packaging skills
[13:16] <ogra_> doko obviously opened it on 2011-08-22 ... there were no comments on it until the package was removed 6 weeks later
[13:16] <ogra_> MCR1, well, that can only happen if someone fixes it
[13:16] <MCR1> ogra_: You are right -> it took some time until we found out the fix for the failing compilation
[13:17] <ogra_> MCR1, the last comment on the bug is from 2011-09-29
[13:17] <ogra_> and there were no further ones until you commented a few mins ago
[13:17] <MCR1> ogra_: I've now added detailed instructions - I did not know about this bug
[13:18] <ogra_> detailed instructions ?
[13:18] <ogra_> git checkout and make dont really help
[13:18] <MCR1> ogra_: I made my own one here bug 968112
[13:18] <ogra_> someone needs to make a new upstream release of emerald, someone else needs to package it
[13:19] <ogra_> and it needs to build on all arches
[13:19] <ogra_> thats not a trivial task
[13:19] <MCR1> I have only x86
[13:19] <MCR1> :(
[13:19] <ogra_> use a PPA then
[13:19]  * ogra_ thinks we talk in circles since a while 
[13:20] <MCR1> ok, thx 4 the help
[13:20] <ogra_> make it build and provide a debdiff, find an upstream dev or find a packager who is willing to take the heavylifting
[13:20] <MCR1> thx
[13:36] <MCR1> ogra_: Does it help to have a PPA for i386 and amd64 maintained builds for Precise and Quantal ?
[13:37] <MCR1> lp user ~brainpower is maintaining such a PPA, here the Quantal builds: https://launchpad.net/~brainpower/+archive/testing/+sourcepub/2745472/+listing-archive-extra
[13:39] <ogra_> well, make him build for armhf and ppc too
[13:40] <MCR1> I do not think that this will be easily possible, is this support essential ?
[13:41] <ogra_> well, you need to make sure it builds on all arches
[13:41] <tumbleweed> ogra_: AFAIK nan-canonical people can't get ppc access
[13:41] <tumbleweed> we don't have emulated ppc
[13:42] <ogra_> oh, ibthought ppc builds in containers too now
[13:42] <tumbleweed> maybe I haven't been following *that* closely
[13:42] <MCR1> ogra_: In Compiz we have plugins that are only built for amd64/i386 and won't work and thus are not compiled and packaged for arm/GLES
[13:42] <tumbleweed> but I certainly don't see ppc ppa builders
[13:43] <ogra_> well, i'm probably ahead of time here... UDS smoking corner marketingvtalks ;)
[13:43] <MCR1> ogra_: That is why I asked if all packages nowadays need to run on arm also ?
[13:43] <ogra_> MCR1, yes
[13:44] <MCR1> I bet there are a ton of exceptions for this rule
[13:44] <ogra_> not really...
[13:45] <MCR1> no more glscreensaver for example ?
[13:45] <ogra_> on hw that has no gl thats moot
[13:45] <MCR1> remove all OpenGL applications ?
[13:45] <ogra_> why ?
[13:45] <MCR1> You really must be joking now
[13:45] <ogra_> sw rendering works on arm
[13:46] <MCR1> OpenGL != GLES
[13:46] <ogra_> just not fast
[13:46] <ogra_> and ?
[13:46] <xnox> MCR1: the replacements are the gtk & kde window decorator bridges + themes.
[13:46] <ogra_> mesa = mesa ;)
[13:47] <xnox> MCR1: with respect to "solution", it simply means that it's underlinked and those two libs need to be either added at configure.ac / Makefile.am level, or potentially they are in the wrong order and need to come later.
[13:47] <ogra_> which is an upstream task
[13:47] <xnox> MCR1: with a proper patch & autoreconf, it might go into universe or something like that.
[13:48] <ogra_> right
[13:48] <xnox> ogra_: we patch a lot of packages like that =)))))
[13:48] <MCR1> xnox: that would be great news :)
[13:48] <ogra_> as i said. provide a debdiff and make sure it builds
[13:49] <ogra_> (on all arches indeed)
[13:52] <MCR1> ogra_: This is no attack, I am just wondering: http://packages.ubuntu.com/raring/xscreensaver-gl
[13:52] <MCR1> Where are the arm builds ?
[13:52] <Laney> hmm?
[13:53] <Laney> I don't think we have any hard and fast requirement about that
[13:53] <MCR1> it would be quite ugly for the repos...
[13:53] <Laney> ensuring ongoing maintenance is more interesting IME
[13:53] <ogra_> MCR1, on launchpad
[13:54] <ogra_> you use the wrong tool, packages.u.c is a third party service only listing x86 arches
[13:54] <MCR1> ah, ok
[13:56] <tumbleweed> erm, that's not entirely accurate. it's on ubuntu.com and hosted on canonical servers, we can't call it a third party service
[13:56] <tumbleweed> but yes, it builds on armhf https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/precise/armhf/xscreensaver-gl
[13:57] <ogra_> oh, ssince when ?
[13:57] <ogra_> it used to be run by abdebian guy in the past, when wasbit moved ?
[13:57] <MCR1> ogra_: I could find them on launchpad, thx 4 the info.
[13:57] <tumbleweed> as long as I've know it... And yes, it is run by Rhonda, who is more a debian person
[13:58]  * Rhonda hides
[13:58] <MCR1> ogra_: I will try my best to meet Emerald requirements (might take a while though...)
[13:58] <ogra_> hmm, i'm probably to long in this business
[13:59] <Rhonda> MCR1, arm is not part of the official pool, is it.
[13:59] <ogra_> iit is
[13:59] <Rhonda> I don't see arm in http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/raring/
[13:59] <tumbleweed> and no, there is no requirement that every package build on every arch. But it's preferred.
[13:59] <ogra_> since 5 releases
[13:59] <Rhonda> ogra_, isn't
[13:59] <tumbleweed> Rhonda: it's on ports.ubuntu.com
[13:59] <Rhonda> tumbleweed: That's a seperate pool, thanks for proving my point.
[13:59] <tumbleweed> internally to LP, they are the same pool
[14:00] <Laney> can you get at an internal mirror from the packages.u.c box?
[14:00] <tumbleweed> it gets split out before it hits the primary public mirror
[14:00] <Laney> where they are in the same pool
[14:00] <ogra_> Rhonda, it is officialnsince lucid
[14:00] <Rhonda> ogra_, http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/lucid/ doesn't have it neither.
[14:00] <ogra_> but will never move to archive.u.c
[14:00] <Rhonda> Thanks again for proving my point.
[14:00] <Laney> it's to do with usage not officialdom
[14:00] <ogra_> it is a 100% officially supported arch nontheless
[14:01] <Rhonda> Why isn't it in the same pool then but in ports?
[14:01] <ogra_> wejust dont move it to save mirrors from complaining,mits avtech reason we wont mobe itto archive.u.c
[14:02] <Laney> parse error
[14:02] <ogra_> sorry, typing on a nexus7 here
[14:02] <Rhonda> Me too :)
[14:02] <ogra_> we just dont move it to save mirror admins from complaining, its a tech reason we wont move it to archive.u.c
[14:03] <Rhonda> Then it's the same tech reason it's not included in pkg.u.c
[14:03] <ogra_> but itis a fully supported arch nontheless
[14:03] <ogra_> with 5 years support etc yadda yadda
[14:04] <ogra_> (LTS supported only since precise though)
[14:04] <Rhonda> If someone would like to sponsor my efforts along that lines I would be willing to invest more time into the packages code.  Unfortunately my time is limited and I have to take care for my kid and pay back loan.
[14:04] <ogra_> we all do .., sadly :/
[14:06] <tumbleweed> knowing nothing about canonical infrastructure, is there a full mirror available to it?
[14:06] <tumbleweed> full as in including ports
[14:06] <ogra_> nope
[14:06] <tumbleweed> because that would make it easy
[14:07] <ogra_> persia knows a few unofficial asian ports mirrors iirc
[14:07] <tumbleweed> yeah, it's not hard to reassemble one
[14:07] <ogra_> but beyind that there arent any officilly
[14:09] <Rhonda> tumbleweed: Well, taking everything from ports isn't something I fancy.  Are really all archs on ports officially supported ones?
[14:09] <ogra_> ppc and armhf are
[14:09] <tumbleweed> and armel went away
[14:09] <Rhonda> Hm, and those are the only two I see for raring.
[14:09] <ogra_> armel not
[14:10] <Rhonda> Was armel official in lucid?  ia64?  sparc?
[14:10] <Rhonda> Thing is, deciding which are officially supported and which are not from having all in the same pool is fishing for problems.
[14:10] <ogra_> armel, no ppc and no sparc/ia64 iirc
[14:10] <Rhonda> Would require load of additional complexity in the code.
[14:11] <Rhonda> If the official ones could be moved to archive and the inofficial be kept on ports, there would be code to work with that.
[14:11] <tumbleweed> presumably at some point, we'll have to move armhf to archive.u.c
[14:11] <tumbleweed> (or arm64 by then...)
[14:11] <ogra_> iirc there are some tools in ubuntu-dev-tools tobfind whatsnsupported
[14:11] <Rhonda> And additional complexity only for the reason "to save mirror admins from complaining"
[14:12] <Rhonda> I dislike such decisions.  They make things just unneeded complicated. :/
[14:12] <tumbleweed> ogra_: not that I know of
[14:12] <tumbleweed> (but that was supposed to happen as the next stage of reorg...)
[14:12]  * ogra_ didnt make that decision, i would love to see my arm work on a.u.c
[14:13] <tumbleweed> I assume at some point the traffic on ports will become unmanageable
[14:13] <tumbleweed> (unless all vendors do their own thing)
[14:13] <ogra_> but it has been discussed each release for the past 4 years
[14:13] <ogra_> and hasnt moved til today
[14:14] <tumbleweed> anyway, there is no requirement that every package build on every arch. But it's preferred. In Debain, I port my packages to all the archs I can
[14:14] <ogra_> so i wouldnt expectthat to happen in the near future either
[14:14] <Rhonda> The much I hate making you feel bad for your work because it doesn't receive the publicity it deserves, the much I go with the pragmatic approach here: Not working around that issue might increase the preassure on them to get it in.
[14:15] <ogra_> tumbleweed, i wouldnt let a package in if it wouldnt buildon all arches
[14:15] <ogra_> Rhonda, heh,i didnt mean to push you there :)
[14:16] <tumbleweed> ogra_: in this case, I'd agree with you
[14:16] <ogra_> i was just stating the fact that o.u.c only has x86
[14:16] <ogra_> *p.u.c
[14:21] <Rhonda> Yep.  And I've heard that before.  My plan is to activate the "debports" part for ports.u.c to include them that way.
[14:21] <Rhonda> It would show the archs on the packages lists, but explicitly state them as "(unofficial port)"
[14:22] <Rhonda> That's the best I can offer on more-or-less short term.
[14:22] <tumbleweed> being accurate about the officialness and canonical-supportability isn't that important on packages.u.c
[14:22] <tumbleweed> (to me)
[14:29] <xnox> Rhonda: armhf is official, despite living on ports.
[14:29] <xnox> Rhonda: the ports vs archive split is pure disk space management for mirrors.
[14:30] <xnox> Rhonda: just list them all, without any labels =)
[14:30] <tumbleweed> I assume that requires more work
[14:33] <Rhonda> xnox: Do you say so with your canonical hat on?  :)
[14:34] <xnox> Rhonda: yes =)
[14:35] <xnox> Rhonda: also documented here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/FAQ#Architectures
[14:35] <xnox> Rhonda: "While ARMEL and ARMHF are listed in ports.ubuntu.com for this release, they should be considered supported architectures"
[14:36] <Rhonda> AHAH!
[14:36] <Rhonda> "maintenance is best-effort"
[14:36] <tumbleweed> see footnote 4
[14:36] <xnox> Rhonda: but i think footnote 4 overrides that =)
[14:36] <ogra_> it does
[14:37] <Rhonda> xnox: Yes, but that's a specific statement for those two archs, not a general one.
[14:37] <Rhonda> And that's where it gets tricky.
[14:37] <xnox> Rhonda: yeah, hence why I explicetly said "Rhonda: armhf is official, despite living on ports."
[14:37] <xnox> since armel is dropped in raring now anyway.
[14:38] <Rhonda> You also said "just list them all, without any labels =)"
[14:38] <ogra_> erm, the release manifest linked is outdated
[14:38] <xnox> Rhonda: list them all without goind down the path of labeling something offices vs unofficial. It gets tricky very quickly and not as clear cut as ports vs archive.
[14:38] <xnox> since some ports at some point in time have or hasn't been "official"
[14:39] <ogra_> yeah, powerpc was on and off
[14:40] <xnox> Rhonda: anyway p.u.c is very useful =) and the more it lists the better.
[14:45] <Rhonda> Well …   http://www.amazon.de/registry/wishlist/3UJMXUVWGN7Y9/   *whistlesinnocently*   ;)
[14:47] <Rhonda> No, I'll look into (ab)using the debports port for getting the ports stuff in.  And I need to look why the package descriptions are NOT appearing anymore on the site.  %-/
[14:48] <xnox> Rhonda: this seems appropriate "Getting Things Done. The Art of Stress-Free Productivity"
[14:52]  * Rhonda nods